Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity. You just didn't bother to read it. Go do some research.

Yes, I did. It does not say what you claim. Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[ding]

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

.

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

seriously, do you have a link verifying the attributions for any of the figures within the 4th century compilation of your book. can you explain why not or why the history of christianity has been so one sided - why you are so vehemently opposed against people making their own choices that you attempt to write laws and other means to oppress them -

why does your religion lend itself entirely to the politics of hatred as demonstrated throughout history. fearing a free Spirit so much as having a need to kill them ...

Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing.

 

[ding]

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

 

[Czernobog]

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity. You just didn't bother to read it. Go do some research.

Yes, I did. It does not say what you claim. Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

What do you not understand?

 

[ding]

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity. You just didn't bother to read it. Go do some research.

Yes, I did. It does not say what you claim. Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

What do you not understand?
View attachment 107350

My original questions. What can you not explain?

 

[sealybobo]

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

.

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

seriously, do you have a link verifying the attributions for any of the figures within the 4th century compilation of your book. can you explain why not or why the history of christianity has been so one sided - why you are so vehemently opposed against people making their own choices that you attempt to write laws and other means to oppress them -

why does your religion lend itself entirely to the politics of hatred as demonstrated throughout history. fearing a free Spirit so much as having a need to kill them ...

Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing.

I thought of another way im better than a lot of Christians and Christian values are finally catching up with me.

How many Christians went to churches as kids? What's up with taking your kids to a show that abuses animals? I've always known they were bad. Well finally Ringling brothers is closing for good. Thank god! Lol. Took him long enough to get Christians to understand it's a barbaric show.

Yet I instinctively knew.

 

[ding]

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

.

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

seriously, do you have a link verifying the attributions for any of the figures within the 4th century compilation of your book. can you explain why not or why the history of christianity has been so one sided - why you are so vehemently opposed against people making their own choices that you attempt to write laws and other means to oppress them -

why does your religion lend itself entirely to the politics of hatred as demonstrated throughout history. fearing a free Spirit so much as having a need to kill them ...

Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing.

I thought of another way im better than a lot of Christians and Christian values are finally catching up with me.

How many Christians went to churches as kids? What's up with taking your kids to a show that abuses animals? I've always known they were bad. Well finally Ringling brothers is closing for good. Thank god! Lol. Took him long enough to get Christians to understand it's a barbaric show.

Yet I instinctively knew.

I don't believe I have ever been to a circus. I must be better than you, right?

 

[Czernobog]

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity. You just didn't bother to read it. Go do some research.

Yes, I did. It does not say what you claim. Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

What do you not understand?
View attachment 107350

My original questions. What can you not explain?

How about you explain how it does? Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?
Oh, and you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

 

[ding]

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity. You just didn't bother to read it. Go do some research.

Yes, I did. It does not say what you claim. Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

What do you not understand?
View attachment 107350

My original questions. What can you not explain?

How about you explain how it does? Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?

I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know... the universe.

 

[Czernobog]

I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity. You just didn't bother to read it. Go do some research.

Yes, I did. It does not say what you claim. Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

What do you not understand?
View attachment 107350

My original questions. What can you not explain?

How about you explain how it does? Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?

I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know... the universe.

So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

 

[ding]

Yes, I did. It does not say what you claim. Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

What do you not understand?
View attachment 107350

My original questions. What can you not explain?

How about you explain how it does? Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?

I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know... the universe.

So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.

So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[BreezeWood]

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

.

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

seriously, do you have a link verifying the attributions for any of the figures within the 4th century compilation of your book. can you explain why not or why the history of christianity has been so one sided - why you are so vehemently opposed against people making their own choices that you attempt to write laws and other means to oppress them -

why does your religion lend itself entirely to the politics of hatred as demonstrated throughout history. fearing a free Spirit so much as having a need to kill them ...

Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing.

.

Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing.

you have the deaths of innocent people as the reality of your agenda disguised as a religion.


According to you ...

that is according to bing ... the righteous 4th century inquisitor.

 

[Czernobog]

What do you not understand?
View attachment 107350

My original questions. What can you not explain?

How about you explain how it does? Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?

I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know... the universe.

So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.

So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Because it is infinitely reusable. You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?

And I notice that you didn't even acknowledge that "The Big Bang", based on Einsteinian physics doesn't work. No one has ever fixed the flaws in the original calculations, and theory. They have just kept right on working with it, as if it works.

 

[ding]

My original questions. What can you not explain?

How about you explain how it does? Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?

I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know... the universe.

So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.

So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Because it is infinitely reusable. You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?

No, wrong. Gravitons are only hypothetical. So 0, until we can prove otherwise.

 

[Czernobog]

How about you explain how it does? Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?

I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know... the universe.

So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.

So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Because it is infinitely reusable. You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?

No, wrong. Gravitons are only hypothetical. So 0, until we can prove otherwise.

Everything we are discussing is hypothetical!!!!! So, what's your point? And, for the record, gravitons are theoretical, not hypothetical. There is a difference. A hypothesis has never been tested. The existence of gravitons has been tested - repeatedly - and the math is sound; unlike your God that has never been so much as detected, let alone tested, with any mathematic confirmation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Mudda]

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

Because you believe you are agnostic.

I'm a hell of a lot more agnostic than you are Catholic, that's a fact, brah.

That's probably not saying much.

Cuz you're not much of a Catholic?

 

[Mudda]

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.

And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.

And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?

 

[ding]

I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know... the universe.

So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.

So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Because it is infinitely reusable. You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?

No, wrong. Gravitons are only hypothetical. So 0, until we can prove otherwise.

Everything we are discussing is hypothetical!!!!! So, what's your point? And, for the record, gravitons are theoretical, not hypothetical. There is a difference.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. Not everything. Some are observations and measurements. In the case of gravitons they a hypothetical. Besides, like I have already explained to you cyclical models have problems. Specifically, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it. Do you know how CERN describes the beginning of the universe?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[Czernobog]

So, quantum matter is not a part of the universe? That is your claim? Further, you do realize that, according to Einstein, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics don't break down.

"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.

So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Because it is infinitely reusable. You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?

No, wrong. Gravitons are only hypothetical. So 0, until we can prove otherwise.

Everything we are discussing is hypothetical!!!!! So, what's your point? And, for the record, gravitons are theoretical, not hypothetical. There is a difference.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. Not everything. Some are observations and measurements. In the case of gravitons they a hypothetical. Besides, like I have already explained to you cyclical models have problems. Specifically, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it. Do you know how CERN describes the beginning of the universe?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

No, they are not. They are theoretical. There is a difference.
A hypothesis has never been tested. The existence of gravitons has been tested - repeatedly - and the math is sound; unlike your God that has never been so much as detected, let alone tested, with any mathematic confirmation.

 

[ding]

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot. Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.

And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.

And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?

No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.

Are you changing your mind? How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?

No, because logic says so. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.